The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Economic Summit and CSCE – 13 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Economic Summit and Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) made on the 13th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit in Munich and the summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki last week. I represented the United Kingdom at the economic summit, with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Foreign Secretary also attended the Helsinki summit.

    The economic summit met against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish. The difficulty of achieving non-inflationary growth was uppermost in our discussions. We would all like to see faster growth. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated but the conclusions, which are in the Library of the House, record both our desire for stronger sustainable growth and our view that it can be achieved only through sound monetary and fiscal policies. Unless we get inflation down and keep it down there will be no lasting growth.

    The single biggest contribution that can be made to recovery throughout the world is a GATT settlement. A settlement would give a sharp non-inflationary boost to the world economy. The OECD has concluded that it would be equivalent to a $195 billion gain in annual incomes. More than $90 billion of that would accrue to developing and former communist countries. It would boost the economic transformation of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with their reforms, and check protectionism in world trade.

    A GATT settlement is essential, and I make no apology for having put it high on the agenda at Munich and insisting that it was discussed in detail. In the light of this year’s reform of the common agricultural policy, the remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on the crucial agricultural issues is a small one. I believe that it can be bridged and the communique contains a firm commitment to a result this year.

    At the economic summit last year I pledged to attend the Rio conference and urged others to do the same. On my return, I suggested an eight-point follow-up action plan. That plan, which is set out in the conclusions, was accepted by the G7.

    We also had a meeting with President Yeltsin, days after Russia had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The imminence of the Munich meeting undoubtedly helped to clinch that agreement. It opens the way for the IMF to release the first $1 billion credit tranche. That, in turn, opens the way to a debt-rescheduling agreement. I was able to announce that the United Kingdom is ready to make available $500 million of export credit cover for the former Soviet Union.

    Russia faces massive difficulties. Inflation is running at well over 150 per cent., the fiscal deficit is rising and will be well over 10 per cent. Of GDP for the rest of this year, and the pace of reform has slowed down in several areas. Translating reforms on paper into reforms in operation is proving difficult. President Yeltsin assured us of his determination to put renewed impetus behind the reform programme. With the IMF programme in place it will be easier to monitor progress and to propose remedies, but none of us should underestimate the huge nature of his task : it is literally unparalleled and we all have a stake in his success. The United Kingdom has urged for some time that the Munich summit should take an initiative on the safety of nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Members of the Community pledged themselves at Lisbon to provide significant resources. The G7 agreed on an action programme and to create a fund to supplement existing bilateral efforts to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted approach.

    The political declaration adopted at Munich underlines, in respect of the former Soviet Union, the general theme of help for self-help. It calls for a resolution of the northern territories dispute. The declaration also calls for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 extension conference and underlines the need, in the face of the growing demands on them, to strengthen both the United Nations and the CSCE.

    The CSCE played a crucial role in the 1970s, setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. The role of the CSCE in monitoring human rights, especially minority rights, remains. The CSCE must also take on new roles as well. At last week’s meeting we agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE covering : the earlier warning of political conflicts ; the need for a new mechanism to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a high commissioner for national minorities ; and the CSCE role in peacekeeping.

    No mechanisms can provide solutions if people are not willing to use them. It will take more than one or two conferences to resolve many of the ethnic conflicts that were frozen under communist rule and which are now coming aggressively to life again. But progress was made at that meeting, for example, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the Baltic states and on the handling of Yugoslavia. The overall priority in Yugoslavia is to try to get the parties to negotiate. In that task, Lord Carrington’s efforts are of crucial importance, and were underlined and endorsed at the Helsinki meeting. In the short term, our priority is the provision of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and beyond. Britain already has 300 medical personnel as part of the UN force in Croatia. We have so far flown 28 humanitarian flights to Sarajevo. HMS Avenger will take part in an operation to monitor sanctions, jointly agreed at Helsinki by NATO and the Western European Union. The feasibility of establishing a land corridor to Sarajevo under UN auspices is being explored. If such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it. We would not supply ground troops.

    Everyone who has seen the recent news reports has been shocked and moved by the suffering children in Sarajevo. At the end of last week, we told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we stood ready to evacuate children from Sarajevo to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, or to send medical teams to Yugoslavia to provide treatment on the spot.

    If it is possible to treat the children on the spot, near to their families, with people around them who speak their language and in relatively familiar surroundings, that is obviously the best way. We have told the International Red Cross that we are willing to fly out medical personnel at very short notice if needed. I hope to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London later this week to see what further action is needed.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd in Helsinki – 10 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, in Helsinki on Friday 10th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A year and a half ago at the Paris summit, all the countries present celebrated the end of communism and the re-emergence of many European democracies. We knew at that time, when that meeting took place, that a lot of ancient disputes, frozen by communism, suppression of national identity, would be likely to re-emerge. And events have shown that to be an entirely accurate judgment. Yugoslavia of course is the most vivid example but there are many others, including in the former Soviet Union. I have no doubt that other bushfires from time to time will break out as well.

    The CSCE played a central role in setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. It would be very good to think in the post-communist world that with the re-emergence of democracy those standards would automatically apply. But we know that is not the case so the old role of the CSCE as a human rights monitor, particularly in respect of ethnic minorities, continues and becomes more important. But it has to take on a new role as well, a role as fire-fighter.

    At this meeting we have agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE, they cover the early warning of potential conflicts, a particularly important role I think; mechanisms to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a High Commissioner for national minorities and of course a CSCE role in peace-keeping as well.

    I would not wish to make exaggerated claims for any of those developments and I think other people would be unwise to do so as well. The CSCE is a bit like the United Nations, but it does lack the sharp edge which the Security Council gives to the UN. It can only act by consensus, its effectiveness, therefore depends upon peer pressure, upon the pressure which a majority of nations in Europe can bring upon a minority, and ultimately upon the willingness of its members to use the mechanisms that are available to it. Again, Yugoslavia provides the most vivid example.

    One of the sub-plots in Yugoslavia has been whether the naval monitoring of sanctions in the Adriatic should be done by the Western European Union or jointly by NATO and the Western European Union. Agreement has been reached that it should be a joint operation. It is right for Europe to play a more prominent role in defence, but it would be dangerous and it would be foolish for any of us in Europe to try and exclude the United States and NATO from European defence operations.

    As at Lisbon, as at Munich, Yugoslavia has been high on the agenda and NATO and Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers have been meeting in the margins to discuss what more we can do. As of today HMS Avenger is to take part in the sanctions monitoring force. Our humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo continues. We are collectively looking at the feasibility of a land corridor to Sarajevo so that food can be supplied under United Nations auspices. If, if such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it but we would not be supplying ground troops.

    At the same time we must continue to support fully Lord Carrington’s efforts to bring the parties in Bosnia Herzegovina, and indeed in the other republics, closer to a political settlement in their own areas and of their own differences.

    The crucial responsibility here, and I emphasise that, the crucial responsibility here is with Lord Carrington, a fact which was underlined and endorsed by the Western European Union Foreign Ministers in their discussion earlier today.

    In my capacity as President of the European Community, I have had separate meetings here with Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark, the President and the Prime Minister of Finland and Prime Minister Bilt of Sweden. There will be further contacts with the Danish government over the coming weeks.

    With the Prime Ministers of Finland and Sweden I set out our plans for handling the preparations for enlargement of the Community. Although the official negotiations cannot start before Maastricht ratification is complete, there is a general willingness in the Community to complete as much of the business as possible behind the scenes before the ratification.

    I also have taken the opportunity of this visit here to have a meeting with Eduarde Shevardnadze of Georgia and with President Kravchuk of the Ukraine. It was my first meeting with President Kravchuk but not, of course, with Mr Shevardnadze for we were both Foreign Ministers at the same time, we were in touch during the coup in Moscow and have been so on many occasions in the past.

    So both in terms of the documentation that has been signed here and the bilateral contacts that I have been able to make during my visit here, it has been a worthwhile occasion and the Foreign Secretary and I will endeavour to field any questions you may have about any of those matters.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    If the feasibility of a land corridor is established, if the appropriate UN resolution were obtained, why would Britain not be among those countries willing to deploy ground troops to secure that corridor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every country must make its own contribution towards the overall UN contribution. We are making a contribution in flying in humanitarian forces, we are making a contribution at sea, we are making a contribution by air. Other people have their expertise in different areas and have indicated that they would be prepared to undertake different responsibilities.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    We gather that there has been disagreement over wording of a resolution here on Yugoslavia and that it will not be agreed, does that not rather overshadow the efforts of this organisation to try and turn itself from a talking shop into a real organisation which can play a part in resolving these ethnic disputes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have the pleasure of having one of the negotiators with me.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: (DOUGLAS HURD)

    The difficulty as I understand it, this was handled by officials, was that there were some who wanted a declaration on Yugoslavia, we would have been very glad to have one, others wanted a declaration on Nogorno Karabakh, there was difficulty in agreeing the second and therefore difficulty in agreeing the first because some people linked the two. I do not think anyone expects the CSCE to be operative on Yugoslavia. The people who are operating on Yugoslavia are the Community, Lord Carrington’s peace conference as the Prime Minister just said, the UN with the UN force in Croatia, UN sanctions, and the humanitarian effort which is going ahead. So I do not think the absence of a CSCE declaration on Yugoslavia is at all harmful.

    QUESTION (Charles Reiss, Evening Standard):

    If we were to provide cover for a land corridor, and I realise you say it is conditional, can you at this stage say what form and what strength that might take and if not who will be doing the work and how fast do you expect it to be completed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early to give a precise answer to that, we do not know whether other people would offer to provide air cover as well or whether a substantial part of the responsibility would fall to the United Kingdom. What we have done thus far is indicate our willingness in principle, providing the feasibility of the operation is established, to provide suitable air cover. Other people may offer to do so as well, As with the naval operations, other people will offer to assist the British ships that will take part. So it is difficult to say yet, Charles, precisely how much we will need to do but the agreement that we will take part is clear.

    QUESTION (Newsweek):

    In the debate about whether WEU or NATO or both would be involved in, this Yugoslavia operation, of course the two greatest proponents of NATO having a role are Great Britain and the United States, if those are the two major powers unwilling to commit ground forces, if that should become necessary, does that not undercut a little bit the ability and the power of the argument that NATO should be heavily involved or should take the lead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it does and for several reasons. If we actually look at the security of Europe over the past 40 years, it has been a NATO secured security, a security secured by the Alliance and essentially, it has to be said, by the sheer strength and importance of the American presence in Europe and the capacity of the Americans beyond Europe to cone to Europe had it been necessary. That remains the situation in terms of Europe in the future. It also has to be said that the time has come for the Europeans themselves proportionately to take a greater share of the defence of Europe and of activities within Europe. And I think it is therefore entirely right for the Europeans themselves to take a greater role, although under NATO auspices, in operations that take place within Europe. And that of course is precisely what is happening. Different countries in the NATO Alliance have different interests in Yugoslavia, different history, different contacts with Yugoslavia, a number of nations, some very close to Serbia, some very close to Croatia, some geographically very close, and it is really a question of horses for courses, we must determine who can do what best and share out the responsibilities equally and adequately. But the overall position and the overall NATO umbrella I think is quite clear.

    What would be immensely difficult and dangerous for the whole of Europe would be if the Europeans’ responsibility to take a greater proportionate responsibility for defence led them to set up parallel proposals to NATO and to have two quite separate establishments dealing with the overall defence of Europe. That would be damaging, that would be dangerous, we have repeatedly said that. But the fact that within NATO different European nations should take on different responsibilities as a part of NATO seems to us to be the way ahead. The Foreign Secretary would like to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The point was illustrated by what actually happened here today. We had a meeting of WEU Ministers this morning and we approved the declaration which you have and you will see scattered through that at several points the emphasis on consultation and coordination with NATO. And then we had a meeting with NATO Ministers which I was very keen should happen but which only lasted quarter of an hour because there was no disagreement on the statement put out by NATO about the NATO part of it, and in that there is clear reference to cooperation with the naval force established by the WEU.

    So that outline, that work together which was sketched in principle, in theory, in many discussions last year, some of them very difficult discussions, has had its first test in action and the way in which decisions were reached this morning is I think reasonably encouraging although of course a lot depends on the follow through.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Prime Minister, does Britain now want to see a more strongly-worded UN Resolution and were that to come to pass, would you join President Bush in not ruling out the possibility that British airplanes could be involved in a strike against Yugoslavian insurgents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the possibility of further action. We have set out the difficulties of it; we have set out the concerns of it; we have indicated the areas where we would take part in maintaining sanctions at sea with British vessels; in providing air cover for any land corridor that might be opened; in flying humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo – a number of RAF planes have been in and out of Sarajevo and that will continue.

    Those are the areas where we must continue and it may be that at some stage we will need a further United Nations Resolution. We will face that as and when it comes.

    QUESTION (Marini Vijo, Athens Radio):

    Another side of the Yugoslav problem is the issue of the previous federal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. During the British Presidency, do you believe that a solution to this problem can be found and what kind of solution do you expect that this will be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the difficulties of setting out what you think the solution would be is that sometimes you might make it more difficult to actually achieve the solution. That it will be a priority for us to continue to look at the problems of Yugoslavia – and it will fall particularly to the Foreign Secretary’s remit and he will wish to add something in a moment – I think there is no doubt. We will give it very high priority but I am not sure we are able to anticipate in advance of discussions and meetings that will take place what the outcome will be but the Foreign Secretary may wish to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I agree with that. The Lisbon Summit reached a conclusion on that and I will carry that conclusion when I go to Skopje next week and I will discuss that with President Gigarov of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and I will then report back to the Foreign Affairs Council on July 20.

    QUESTION:

    The WEU operation seems to lack a clear command structure. We are talking about coordinating half a dozen ships, rules of engagement, operational activities but nobody actually in charge of it. Isn’t that rather a dangerous position to be in?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The command structure will of course be worked out between the WEU and NATO and from what I gather from the experts, including Archie Hamilton our Minister of State who was helping us this morning, they do not foresee any great difficulty about that. Of course, you are perfectly right that there will have to be a command structure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a problem that inevitably there is when one has collaborative ventures of this sort and if one has to develop these collaborative ventures on the hoof as occasionally proves necessary, there are bound to be technical discussions about matters like that but they can be resolved and they will be.

    QUESTION (Nick Comfort, Daily Record):

    In your speech this morning, Prime Minister, you said when trouble threatens new means must be found to encourage or compel recourse to peaceful settlement. Doesn’t this look like a bit of a pipe-dream, given what is happening in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. The CSCE has been quiescent one might say for a long time. It is now developing a new lease of life. We have a new Europe; we have a Europe with members who previously were wholly within the communist area. There is a great deal, I think, that can be done with peer pressure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As year succeeds year, we all become more economically independent. Economic pressures will undoubtedly grow as between the majority of European nations and one transgressor within Europe. That is not invariably going to solve the problems but I think the prospects of them being able to bring much greater pressure on people to solve problems increase as time goes on. That is especially true of disputes between nations rather than disputes within a nation such as the problem we have in Yugoslavia which makes it so particularly intractable at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to come back to the feasibility of a land corridor to Bosnia-Hercegovina. What is your position at the moment? Is it feasible or is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that, as to whether it is feasible or not; that is why the feasibility study is being carried out, to find out whether it is going to be feasible.

    If you actually look at the terrain, it is a very difficult proposition indeed to actually establish these corridors and to man them and provide security for the Red Cross and the United Nations troops in blue helmets that will be there so it is acutely difficult and nobody can be certain precisely how that feasibility study will turn out. I hope that it will prove to be possible.

    Clearly, bringing humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo airport is important but the humanitarian supplies also have to be distributed. Quite how quickly that feasibility study can be brought to a successful conclusion, I don’t know. I can only say I hope it will prove to be possible and we will help provide the air cover if it then seems that it a) is possible and b) requires air cover.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    I wanted to ask you why nothing has been done about enforcing the trade embargo against Serbia by land and along the Danube. Is that something which is envisaged? Do you think that is feasible and will Britain be involved in that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is one of the areas of embargo that we will have to examine and it is only in the last day or so that we have actually got ships to sea to look at the trade embargo from the sea. They, of course, at the moment can only log the vessels going in and out and would need a new United Nations Resolution to stop them. Whether the existing United Nations Resolution would provide land action I am not immediately sure but the Foreign Secretary may know the answer to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t think so. What the existing Resolution does is set up a Sanctions Committee which monitors the results of breaches of sanctions and there has been some discussion going on as to whether there has been some arrival of embargoed goods by land in Serbia. If that were clearly evidenced to the Security Council Sanctions Committee, then the Security Council would have to consider what action to take to prevent member states from breaching the embargo but that has not been proved yet.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell):

    Prime Minister, can you sum up for us why Britain is apparently so much more cautious than some of your partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that we are more cautious than all our partners. A number of our partners are very cautious about what actually happens and what can be achieved immediately around Sarajevo.

    One only has to look at the immediate land situation around Sarajevo to see the problems that immediately exist. There you have the airport stuck in the middle of hills; you have a whole series of different groups under the control of different warlords fighting and shooting one against the other; there is no proper command control. There are a vast number of people one needs to negotiate with and if you look at the terrain, it resembles nothing so much geographically as Dien Bien Phu and one remembers the difficulties that actually occurred there.

    So the advice of the military – not just in the United Kingdom but a number of other countries as well – is that it an extremely difficult military operation. It isn’t simply a question of going into the area, conducting a brief exercise and then coming out of the area. It would firstly be difficult to get in; it would secondly be difficult to be effective when they were in; and thirdly, it would be acutely difficult perhaps to get out. Those are matters that the military commanders and those who study the feasibility of these operations will have to take very much into account.

    We saw those problems at an early stage and that is why we expressed ourselves as being cautious about them but we are in no sense alone about that and I think it is also worth nothing the remarks that have been made by some of the United Nations personnel, General Mackenzie amongst them, on the ground that we need to be very cautious about what happens with other land troops not to put at risk the UN humanitarian operation itself. In those circumstances, if other troops are there and people start firing at troops, it is extremely doubtful that they would draw a distinction between the other troops and the United Nations troops in blue helmets who are there for humanitarian reasons and that is a point that has to weigh very heavily with Mr. Boutros Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, very heavily with General Mackenzie, the Canadian commander of the troops there and very heavily with the rest of us.

    Gestures are no adequate response to putting at risk the humanitarian operation that is there and we have to face the reality of what can be done and what the price of doing it might be and it is for those reasons amongst others, why we have set out some of the problems and to borrow the phrase of the Foreign Secretary, find ourselves in land operations at the cautious end of the spectrum.

    QUESTION (Edwina Morton, The Economist):

    Prime Minister, there has been a lot of talk of conflict-prevention at this Summit. Some of the bitterest remarks in the Plenary Session have been directed at the problem of the continued presence of Russian troops in the Baltic States and Moldova. Is there any plan to assist in the speedier relocation of those troops? Does Britain intend to take any role in that whatsoever?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add one thing I should have said perhaps to Alistair Campbell in the last question? There is one further point:

    I should have made the point – because I had in my mind the fighting troops that some people are keen to put in – that we do of course have a number of British ambulance men actually on the ground as part of UNPROFOR, I think from memory round about 300 though it may be slightly more, so we do have British personnel on the ground in and around Sarajevo contributing to ambulance operations and they will stay there.

    To revert to the question that has just been asked, I think events have moved on with the peer pressure that has been created and the Russians have said they will now remove their troops from the Baltic States. What we don’t yet have is a clear indication of the time-scale with which they would do it.

    I have raised that matter with colleagues in some of my discussions here today and I know the Foreign Secretary has done the same I think the right way to proceed is to continue to put pressure on Russia both to remove them and to examine whether assistance is needed to enable then to remove them – for they have their own difficulties in doing so that we must acknowledge – but I think a good step forward has been made in the acknowledgement by the Russians that these troops will be removed in full from the Baltic territories. Now that has been agreed we must act to make sure that it happens and happens within a measurably short period of time.

  • Mr Major’s speech to the CSCE in Finland – 10 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the CSCE in Helsinki on Friday 10th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, may I say on behalf of the European Community and its member states, a very warm thank you for the hospitality that all of us have received here in Finland. You, the government and the people of Finland have made us very welcome and we are very grateful for that.

    Since its beginnings here in Helsinki, the CSCE has held out the prospect of freedom to the citizens of all of Europe, it was established, when the borders and attitudes of Europe were frozen by the Cold War. But now, now we have a very different Europe. People oppressed for decades now have a new voice, new aspirations.

    But it does not in many ways seem as simple as it did just two years ago. National identities, national ambitions, have been rediscovered and with them so have old quarrels and old tensions. The Europe of the late 20th century looks suspiciously like the Europe of the early 20th century, more countries, more national identities, each jostling for position.

    The liberation of so many people from communism is an immense gain for European civilisation, but we must not allow the new diversity to resemble the old chaos. We have institutions to help us manage the problems which our very diversity brings, and we must use those institutions, not least the CSCE itself.

    The CSCE provides a framework in which difficult, historic rivalries can be tackled peacefully and reasonably, it set standards for international behaviour and for the democratic treatment of minorities. We look to the CSCE to play a crucial part in binding our new Europe together.

    The Community and its member states support wholeheartedly the summit documents which we shall sign today. The documents represent a fundamental change for all of us to settle disputes peacefully. We subscribed to this principle in the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, when trouble threatens new means must be found to encourage or compel recourse to peaceful settlement.

    The dissolution of Yugoslavia brings home to us the need for peaceful negotiation of this sort. All parties have contributed in their own way to the state of affairs that now exists. But the greater share of responsibility falls on the Serbian leadership.

    Since violent conflict began last year, the European Community, acting under the remit of the CSCE, has done what it can to bring about a solution. The conference, the conference chaired by Lord Carrington, has established a framework for a settlement. The Presidency will strive to make progress, working in close cooperation with the United Nations.

    Our monitor mission has rebuilt confidence in same of the worst afflicted areas. Some monitors have been killed and those responsible must be brought to account. The monitors who remain continue to risk their lives for European ideals, for CSCE principles and I pay very warm tribute to them.

    As we said at the European Council in Lisbon on 29 June, the Community and its member states believe that the immediate dispatch of observers to Kosovo and to neighbouring states would contribute to the restoration of confidence. The conflict, the conflict in and around Nogorno-Karabakh is another tragedy which threatens wider instability. The European Community and its member states urge all parties to negotiate in good faith for a peaceful settlement, we call for the early convocation, after the discussions in Rome, of the Minsk peace conference, we need that because the issue cannot be resolved by force of arms, and the same holds true of the conflicts in Georgia and Moldova.

    Drawing on the lessons of these crises, the Community and its member states have put forward proposals for resolving disputes and preventing conflicts. The CSCE should not be a watching by-stander, a hand-wringing on-looker to Europe’s quarrels. The CSCE must develop the means and the will to act before the fighting begins.

    We welcome the important decision to establish a High Commissioner on national minorities; we welcome the agreement that the CSCE may request organisations such as NATO, the Western European Union and the European Community to help in peace-keeping. With these decisions the CSCE has come of age as a regional organisation, capable of acting in the framework of the UN Charter to maintain stability.

    But the task of keeping peace begins at home. The essence of democracy is to debate issues peacefully and to accept decisions fairly reached. Free and fair elections, open government, respect for human rights are not a fleeting novelty, they are an integral part of what Europe means today.

    The Community and its member states will press for action in the CSCE against any CSCE governments which commit clear, gross and uncorrected human rights violations, such governments cannot expect to benefit from Community assistance. Democratic principles and practices lie at the heart of the problem of minorities. As the events of recent months have shown, governments of states with national minorities on their territories must enable members of those minorities to participate freely and effectively in their country’s public life. And to achieve our ambitions for the CSCE, the CSCE must use its different institutions effectively. We welcome the provision in the summit documents for support for the Chairman in office in the exercise of his responsibilities and for decision-making in some circumstances by ad hoc groups of states.

    The European Community was created to make war impossible among its members and to underpin democracy. It achieved that through close knit economic cooperation. You will not be surprised to hear therefore that 35 years on the Community is also committed to helping the new democracies in their historic transition to market economies and in tackling their formidable environmental problems. The relationship between thriving market economies and successful democracies is not an accidental relationship.

    I would like, Mr Chairman, also to make a few brief remarks in my national capacity. It is one thing to proclaim democracy, it is quite another to maintain democracy. To this end, I want to promote six ways to make the CSCE more effective:

    – first, the keynote for the future should be a Europe for individuals, not a Europe for officialdom or for politicians, but a Europe for all its individual citizens. An integral part of modern democracy is the right of the citizen to challenge the state, individuals need to know what their rights are, whether in the matter of law or of other essential services;

    – secondly, we need thorough scrutiny of the record of states in putting Helsinki standards into practice, I am glad that the United Kingdom proposals in this area have been accepted;

    – third, more effort in monitoring standards should serve to prevent conflict, that where this fails the CSCE has to face up to rising tensions, even outright conflict, and CSCE member states must be willing, not only to submit problems for investigation, but also to adopt and to implement the outcome, the CSCE should be ready- to assist at the early stages of ethnic rivalry. One feature of our new Europe is the fact that the dissolution of the former Soviet Union has left some 25 million Russian speakers living beyond the borders of the Russian federation. Other delicate and complex minority issues have emerged. The High Commissioner for Minorities can perform an historic task in helping all the states come to terms with these realities;

    – fourth, we need a politically binding code of conduct on security relations between states, this should cover the subordination of armed forces to democratic government and the circumstances in which a state’s armed forces might support the civil power, the United Kingdom will work hard in this area;

    – fifth, this summit will increase the range and depth of CSCE activities but this does not require a large new level of officialdom, the CSCE’ s administrative corps needs to remain small and the CSCE should not take on tasks tackled satisfactorily elsewhere. It can and it should call on the resources of existing bodies, it has done so today by accepting the principle of recourse to international organisations for peace-keeping;

    – and sixth, the CSCE should appoint a Secretary General to assist the Chairman in office, such an office would provide continuity in our work and represent the CSCE internationally, adding to its authority.

    At this summit, Mr Chairman, we have the new Europe assembled. It is a momentous occasion, the CSCE not only helped end the Cold War, it enabled it to end peacefully in a spirit of democracy and cooperation. If CSCE membership is only a formality then this organisation will be a sham. What counts is not what we have said; not even what we have signed, what counts truly is what we now do to give our commitments real meaning in the lives of the citizens in every part of the new Europe.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on his way to Helsinki to attend a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Jackson : Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that the prompt and efficient administration of public money is his responsibility and therefore, that it is his and his Government’s responsibility that many of my constituents are waiting more than six months to have their disability living allowance claims processed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to join me in commiserating with Mr. Michael Bichard who has had no fewer than 26 parliamentary questions and hundreds of letters of complaint referred to him from hon. Members?

    Mr. Newton : I am not sure that I shall invite my right hon. Friend to agree with all that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree about the duty that we all have to ensure the proper administration of public money, about the satisfaction, which the hon. Lady has not expressed, in the level of demand for the extremely successful new disability benefits, and about the Government’s determination to ensure that those benefits are effectively delivered.

     

    Q2. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Sir John Hannam : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous success of the health service reforms, especially in my part of Devon where the general practitioner fund holdings and the trusts are working for the benefit of staff and patients? Will he welcome the changed attitude of the British Medical Association, which shows the popularity and success of the reforms?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I very much welcome that. It reflects the fact that practical experience throughout the country is demonstrating the benefits of those reforms. There is clearly also a wide welcome for the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which will build further on their success.

    Dr. John Cunningham : What reasons does the Leader of the House give for the Prime Minister’s failure to achieve his objectives at the economic summit in Munich?

    Mr. Newton : An economic summit, whether it takes place in Munich or anywhere else, is a gathering of people designed to achieve agreement on the pursuit of common objectives. No one member of such a gathering can force the others to agree. It is clear, however, that useful progress was made at Munich on key objectives relating both to western relations with Russia and to advancing the objectives of the GATT round. Progress was also made in a number of other ways.

    Dr. Cunningham : Is it not clear that no amount of vacuous communiques can disguise the fact that, for the second year running, Britain is bottom of the G7 league in relation to growth, investment and job creation? As even Lady Thatcher is now warning of economic catastrophe in Britain, is it not time for new economic and industrial policies for our country? Will the Government act now or will they simply continue to wring their hands and do nothing?

    Mr. Newton : It is clear that the action taken by the Government in recent months is creating a secure foundation for the country to emerge from the recession in the latter part of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is in a quoting frame of mind, he may wish to know that in a press release issued only three or four days ago the Institute of Directors said that half the directors questioned in June were more optimistic. That is the highest level of sustained optimism since August 1988.

    Dr. Cunningham : Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister claimed a triumph for the economic summit in London, and the Government did nothing. Will they do nothing again about the appalling misery that they are creating in this country?

    Mr. Newton : The Government will continue with the sustained application of policies which are producing the conditions for recovery, and doing so successfully.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hague : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s announcement of an order for the fourth Trident submarine? Does he agree that the three best recent additions to the future security of the nation are the ordering of the submarine, the re-election of a Government who had the consistency and good sense to proceed with the order, and the defeat of Opposition parties whose recommendations vary from scrapping this important deterrent altogether to sending submarines out to sea with no weapons on board?

    Mr. Newton : In a word, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

    Ms. Lynne : Can the Leader of the House explain how we can take the proposals on health promotion seriously when the Government are presiding over the collapse of national health service dentistry?

    Mr. Newton : It is absurd to suggest that the Government are presiding over the collapse, as the hon. Lady puts it, of NHS dentistry, given the increases in NHS treatment, the number of dentists and their remuneration over the past few years.

     

    Q4. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Haselhurst : In the light of the targets set in the Government’s White Paper, published yesterday, will the Government consider removing tobacco products from the calculation of the retail prices index? If we believe that price is the main deterrent to smokers, is it not ridiculous that the Chancellor should feel any inhibition about increasing duty on tobacco products because of the effect that that would have on the cost of living and on benefits related to it?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that an advisory committee looks carefully and independently at the proper make-up of the RPI. I would not wish to dictate to that committee how it should do its work. I should point out, however, referring to the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that the increases in tobacco prices in recent years do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been suffering from any inhibition in that respect.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Barnes : At 4 o’clock this afternoon in the Jubilee Room the Spastics Society will launch a report on the problems of disabled people in the 1992 general election. Is the Leader of the House aware that many disabled people could not gain access to polling stations in the election and also had problems with the postal voting system? Will he ensure that the report, entitled “Polls Apart”, is studied at the highest level and that action is taken to ensure that everyone, able-bodied or disabled, who is entitled to exercise the franchise, is given access to the procedure?

    Mr. Newton : As a former Minister for disabled people myself, I would not wish to do anything with such a report other than to examine it carefully and draw it to the attention of those concerned, returning officers and others. The hon. Gentleman’s concern is legitimate.

     

    Q6. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Now that Germany has made it clear that it intends to continue for a long period in the maintenance of economic policies which are driving the rest of Europe from recession into slump, so as to re-equip its eastern provinces, is it not more than ever necessary for British Ministers to show the same resolution in supporting British industry? As this country has determined its own money supply for several centuries, why do Ministers suddenly find that they can no longer do that without having their hands held by a group of German bank clerks? Has not the time now come for us to leave the exchange rate mechanism, at least until such time as German interest rates are reduced to a level compatible with the needs of the whole of the rest of Europe?

    Mr. Newton : The British Government–with support from both sides of the House, in my recollection–accepted the disciplines of the ERM as the essential basis for a British policy designed to bring down inflation and to create the conditions for a sound economy. I see no basis for departing from that.

     

    Q7. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why, under the citizens charter, someone whose train is late is entitled to claim compensation, but when the Government fail to ensure that people’s applications for disability allowances are speedily processed, those people are not entitled to claim compensation against the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that proposals for such compensation should be produced as a matter of urgency, to ensure the efficiency of government?

    Mr. Newton : As I believe the hon. Lady knows, in certain fairly limited circumstances compensation may be payable for a failure of the Department–for negligence, perhaps. The key is to ensure, as the Department is actively seeking to do, that the high level of demand for the new disability benefits–having introduced them myself, I welcome that high level of demand–is met by the administration. That is what my colleagues in the Department are seeking to do.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Robinson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s White Paper on “The Health of the Nation”? Will he also welcome the fact that, at a time of vastly increased resources for the health service, the Government are pushing ahead to make further improvements to the health of the nation and will continue to do so?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday’s White Paper is a significant development in the success of the national health service and in its further success for the rest of this century and beyond. It marks a significant move from the health service’s being, in old-fashioned terms, an illness service, to its being a genuine health service.

     

    Q9. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Darling : Why did the Government forget to mention in their manifesto of just three months ago that they intended to privatise water supply in Scotland?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had those matters under consideration. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend will set out the basis of Government policy in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time.

    Mr. George Howarth : Is the Leader of the House aware that this is national housing week and that housing provision and the construction industry are gripped in a crisis? Would not this be an appropriate time to organise the phased release of the £7 billion of local authority capital receipts to solve the housing crisis and the crisis that the Government have engineered in the construction industry?

    Mr. Newton : I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I myself gave on that point on Tuesday. The Government are in the process of making £6 billion available to housing associations over the next three years. That will produce about 150,000 new homes for rent or low-cost ownership.

    Mr. Moate : Recalling the visit to London by thousands of fishermen earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to ask Parliament to impose tough restrictions on British fishermen which will not be applied to Common Market fishermen–including those who fish in British- controlled waters, with some taking British quota? As the proposals are clearly unfair and will almost certainly be doomed to failure without the industry’s co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues about withdrawing them now and starting new consultations?

    Mr. Newton : I certainly cannot undertake to enter consultations with a view to withdrawing proposals which are most important in relation to the conservation of fish stocks and, therefore, to the long-term future of our fishing industry. Other member states will be subject to Community targets. Our aim is, and will remain, to ensure that the burden of adjustment is fairly shared.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement in Helsinki – 9 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement, made in Helsinki on Thursday 9th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, it does seem pretty tough on top people’s pay, what you have proposed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Many people in the private sector have had to take very low pay increases this year or in some cases no pay increases this year, and of course many of the increases that there have been in the public service for very large numbers of workers have been very modest this year, that is necessary and I think the same principle must apply to people at the top of the civil service as well. I know it is tough, and I sympathise with that, but I think it is necessary, we must have an equality of treatment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that private business should…..

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said that repeatedly in the past, yes I do think that and I have repeatedly said so.

    QUESTION:

    It is alleged that people will want to leave the public service if they can get better rates elsewhere?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that that will be the case, I think we have dealt fairly with the public service over the years and I wish to continue to do so. I must emphasise, the people covered by these pay awards are people at the top of the civil service, the judiciary and of course the armed forces. They are very valuable to the public service and we very much value what they do, but at the moment we must seek pay restraint, pay restraint is being imposed in the private sector of necessity by very many companies upon millions of individuals, it is equally necessary in the public sector both for people at the top of the public sector and for people elsewhere in the public sector and that is what we have sought to do.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Interest Rates – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on interest rates, made on 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look at the level of interest rates now, it is not materially different from the average level of interest rates right the way through the 1980s. It feels different because the asset values have fallen but it is not different and people then say that the real rate of interest is quite high yet our real rate of interest is less than in Germany. For the first time since we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, our rate of interest has come to within 0.25 percent of the Germany interest rates for the first time in God knows how many years – more years than I care to remember.

    They say we are bound entirely by what happens to Germany, those people who oppose our present interest rates policy. I find that very odd. In the last twenty months since we joined, German interest rates have gone up by about 3%, sterling interest rates have come down by 5%. I think that is very odd. If we are tied dot and comma to everything that happens in Germany, I think people should explain why that should be so if that has happened. The point is it is not so and so I am suspicious of the one or two percent off interest rates to kick-start the economy argument. I know of no evidence that that is the case either in this country or in the evidence of what has happened elsewhere in the world.

    We will have to take interest rates down gradually as we can safely do so without damaging the exchange value of sterling and that is so in the Exchange Rate Mechanism or out of it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I could firstly add my thanks to Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in the German government, to the government of Bavaria, to the City authorities, and perhaps above all to the people of Munich who had to face, as is inevitably the case on these occasions, some disruption to their lives. I am very grateful for their forbearance, I hope that next time I can walk in Munich in the streets rather than be part of a large number of cars that are blocking up the streets, and I look forward to that.

    May I now turn to the summit discussions. I think most of you will know when these discussions were first established some years ago, they were originally intended, as an informal opportunity for Heads of Government to talk. Over the years that original format has tended to change, they have become more elaborate, more formal, better prepared, but also I think engendering higher expectations.

    In this summit I think there have been some achievements and also some disappointments. We have met in the last couple of days against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish, a good deal more sluggish than we would wish to see it. All of us would like to see faster growth, but we are having to deal with the aftermath of a revolution as well as a recession. The revolution, of course, is still going on in Russia and even here in Germany there has been a revolution of a kind and Germany is having to use all its motor power to kick-start its own economy and to deal with the difficult problems of what was once known as East Germany.

    In our discussions, the difficulties of achieving non-inflationary growth were uppermost in our discussions. Unless we keep inflation down there is going to be no growth worth having. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated and we all acknowledged that in our discussions, we agreed that we cannot achieve sustainable non-inflationary growth without a commitment to sound money and to fiscal policy.

    There was one measure above all others, I believe, that will help, and that is a settlement of the Uruguay Round. A GATT settlement would give a very sharp, non-inflationary, boost to the world economy, a sharp boost I think also to confidence. But the specific boost to the world economy is equivalent to 195 billion dollars gain in annual world income and of that figure around 90 billion dollars would accrue to developing and to former communist countries. So it is a very great prize, that GATT settlement, when it is achieved, it would boost the economic transformation of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with other reforms and check protectionism in world trade.

    Quite bluntly, an agreement in that GATT round is essential. Some progress has been made, the CAP settlement is one illustration of that, better understanding of what remains to be done and the difficulties within individual states is another indication of progress. The remaining gap still to be settled in the Uruguay Round is relatively small. As far as Britain is concerned, we could settle our difficulties in thirty minutes, there is no difficulty there for us.

    In our discussions I repeatedly stressed the importance and the urgency of a settlement. I think it was essential to have a discussion here and as a result of that we have got in the communique a firmer commitment to detailed negotiations on the outstanding issues than we have had before.

    For Europe, the European Commission are of course our negotiators. But the United Kingdom, as Presidency of the Community, have an active role to play and we intend to play it, there is too much at stake to let GATT slip back down the agenda and we have no intention of letting that happen.

    I mentioned a moment ago that among the countries that would benefit from a GATT settlement would be the former Soviet Union. We are about to have lunch and then an extended meeting with Mr Yeltsin. We do not, I think, just meet as creditors and debtor, but as partners. The measures agreed at the weekend with the International Monetary Fund are tough measures for the release of the first tranche of assistance to the Russians. They open the way to that first credit tranche, they point the way clearly to debt rescheduling, they allow the United Kingdom to release the 500 million dollars of export credit cover that I announced in principle when Mr Yeltsin came to London in January, and we shall now release it without delay.

    The problems that Mr Yeltsin faces are huge and the dangers that he faces are enormous. Very clear evidence of what is at stake is shown by our interest in the safety of nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Chernobyl, to some, may seem a long way away, but I must say to you it is pretty close at home to a sheep farmer in north Wales who, six years after the Chernobyl incident, still cannot sell his sheep at market. The scale of the problem is huge with a dozen stations like Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union alone.

    We have to approach that problem in the following ways. Firstly, urgent safety work at the most unsafe power stations; secondly, to replace them with safe alternatives as soon as possible; and thirdly, to help the former Soviet Union develop alternative

    [section of original missing]

    If we had been able to agree a decisive breakthrough to a GATT settlement, it would have been a huge bonus for the Munich summit. Britain, as I have said, can agree without delay, everyone will have to reach an agreement, the sooner that is done the better. If push comes to shove I am confident it can be done and for my part, push and shove I will, and so will the United Kingdom until we do have that settlement.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, last year’s summit communique made optimistic noises about the prospects for recovery in the world economy, you meet here admitting that it is sluggish and you were over-optimistic, what hope do we have that this year’s declarations will have any more substance by the time we meet in Tokyo next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some signs of recovery and we can see them, but they are very slow and very sluggish. It was clear last year that like many other people we anticipated a stronger recovery and an earlier recovery than yet we have had. One of the ingredients of that, I am sorry to return to the point but I think it is a critical point, one of the ingredients to recovery is going to be confidence and one of the ingredients to confidence will be the security and certainty of reaching an outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    Now that is a self-evident statement of reality. It is very disappointing, not the fault of this summit, but it is very disappointing that we did not have an agreement to the Uruguay Round some time ago, some nations have difficulty with it and I understand that, but I think the clear understanding amongst every participant here of the importance to world growth and to confidence of that agreement on the Uruguay Round was self-evident. So I think we are better placed than perhaps we were last year when we felt the recovery would come earlier, swifter and more effectively than in practice it did.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I rather agree with that, I perhaps would not have expressed it in quite that way, but I rather agree with that. That was why I was the first Western Head of Government to say that I would go to Rio and why I am delighted that so many Heads of Government went to Rio for what was the start of a process, it was never going to be totally solved at Rio, just as it will not be totally solved by an interruption. But he clearly cares very deeply about it, the mistake he perhaps makes is to believe that other people do not care deeply about it as well and I believe that they do.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay):

    Are you disappointed in the results of your personal GATT initiative and do you apportion the blame for this to an over-estimate of American support or to an under-estimate of French obduracy, and do you agree, on reflection, that Munich is no place for British Prime Ministers to seek to make historic agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have made progress on GATT, I am not here to apportion blame for the fact that we were not able to make more progress, I am going to have to negotiate and talk with colleagues and apportioning blame is not a good basis for getting future progress subsequently, what I want is an agreement. I think it would have been intolerable if we had not raised the matter and discussed it here and I think there was general agreement about that.

    What is becoming increasingly apparent is the narrowness of the differences that actually exist. And with political will and political determination and political instruction, the negotiators will be able to reach a GATT agreement, that has been quite apparent from the discussions that we have had here in the last few days. So I think it has given a further impetus.

    And perhaps I can put the point to you the other way round. If I had not raised it and if others perhaps had not raised it and there would have been no discussion of GATT at Munich, what signal would that have given about the determination of people to reach a settlement? It had to be raised even though it was probably not practicable to expect a full settlement here, not least because all the negotiating partners are not here to reach a settlement. But it was imperative that the attempt was made and that the fact that this is of central importance was once again registered and accepted by the Heads of the most powerful industrial countries. So I think it was right to come here and raise the matter and. I think it has been helpful to have done so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you expect to tell Mr Yeltsin today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we want to hear from Mr Yeltsin how his reform programme is proceeding, I think there is agreement now on the first credit tranche from the IMF, so there is quite stiff conditionality attached to it. I think we will want to discuss how the reform programme is proceeding, not just in general terms but what specifically Mr Yeltsin sees happening next week, next month and in the months immediately ahead, it is a crucial critical period.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a worry that he will be demanding almost a bottomless commitment to aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, I do not believe that will be the case, I have no doubt that Mr Yeltsin will set out the very difficult circumstances he faces, we all sympathise with that, the position is indeed extremely difficult. But I think it is really a question of examining the difficulties, looking at the conditionality attached to the first tranche of the IMF loan and pitching our minds forward to see what might happen in the future.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you at the failure to make progress on the GATT negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know that it is entirely true to say there has been failure to make progress, I think it was absolutely essential that the GATT negotiations came on the agenda here, I think it would have been intolerable for us to have come here, the leaders of the seven industrial nations, and not faced squarely the difficulties that actually existed in the GATT Round. We gave our commitment to examine this in the past, I for one was determined that we would examine it and we have. It has not been possible to make a full breakthrough, I think that was always to be expected, there were parties who were part of the negotiation who were not here. But there is now no doubt, not a shred of doubt, in anyone’s mind about the importance of the GATT Round and particularly the importance that the British attach to it. We should have had an agreement by now, we have not got an agreement by now, it remains imperative that we get an agreement and we will push, and push, and push, until eventually some time later this year an agreement is reached, it must be, and the sooner the better.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Tuesday 7th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the Americans are talking about a substantial new aid effort in Yugoslavia, would Britain join that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some general discussions last night about Yugoslavia but nothing concrete has been decided at all and I have no doubt we will return to that. But the principal topic of discussion this morning of course is the former Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    But on Yugoslavia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say about Yugoslavia at the moment, I am afraid, nothing whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    What about GATT, there are reports that you are trying to unblock the log-jam, where do we stand now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone would like to see some progress on the GATT agreement. Clearly if we wish to get world trade moving, the sooner we get a GATT agreement the better, and that is certainly a view that I have expressed and one that I will continue to express. But nobody should under-estimate the difficulties there are for some nations in actually securing an agreement. There is no chance of an agreement actually being reached over this weekend, there are many things and many interests not represented here. But I think what we can do is examine the difficulties, see which of those can best be unblocked most speedily and determine how we can go about that, and of course in private that is what we are all trying to do.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to raise this with President Mitterrand today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to raise a whole series of things with all the other Heads of Government, in a matter of discussion it will continue to be one, it would be surprising if we were not discussing that in the present circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Would it be fair to say that you are now talking about delaying or slowing down the rate at which subsidies would be cut?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidies for whom?

    QUESTION:

    In agricultural subsidies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not going into the details of the discussions. I think there are three or four quite separate areas in GATT that still need to be determined and I strongly suspect they will only be determined collectively, they will not be picked off one by one.

    I am sure that conflicting interests will mean that that certainly is not the case. We will need a collective agreement which deals with all those matters at the same time, now at the moment they are being discussed. I do not think people should have expectations that it is all going suddenly and magically to be solved. It would be very agreeable if that could be the case but there are, as I say, many interests to be considered, many to be consulted, some not here at this particular summit. But I think it is an opportunity to examine the difficulties that exist and see if there is a better way to proceed to make sure we get the agreement we all know that we need and to get that agreement as speedily as possible.

    QUESTION:

    What will you say to many people in the West who say we have got rising unemployment, we have got economic difficulties, why on earth should we help the Russians who have been running a military state for so long?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a distinction between the difficulties that we face in the West, and they are real difficulties of course, and the difficulties that are faced in the former Soviet Union. They face the danger not of difficulties but of total, complete disintegration, chaos and collapse, that is the clear distinction. We, by we I mean the United Kingdom, have been offering special help for the former Soviet Union, especially Russia, and looking after their interests in negotiations with the IMF. We now have an agreement with the IMF and we will have the opportunity of discussing that this morning and discussing it further with Mr Yeltsin when he is here tomorrow. I think that will be a very valuable exchange.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Darwin Initiative

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 24 June, Official Report, columns 200-1, if he is now able to say what funding for the Darwin initiative will be; if he will make a statement on his plans to set up the initiative; how it will relate to the United States biodiversity project based in New York; what further action he plans to conserve biological diversity; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    We are asking interested parties to come forward with ideas on how best to develop a framework for the Darwin initiative and to set priorities for action. We will consider the appropriate level of funding once we have decided those priorities. The Darwin initiative is based on United Kingdom expertise in the field of biodiversity, but we will be looking at action which other countries are taking. In addition to launching this initiative I have also written to my EC and G7 colleagues urging them to take follow- up action to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including taking forward the convention on biodiversity.

     

    Global Technology

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, when he plans to hold the global technology partnership conference; where it will be held; who will be the invitees; which British companies will be involved; what discussions he held with British companies prior to announcing the conference; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The technology partnership initiative will extend the work of the United Kingdom throughout the preparations for the Earth summit to promote the role of technology co-operation in achieving sustainable development. It will provide developing countries with the opportunity to gain direct access to information on environmentally sound technologies, know-how, best practices and case studies available in the United Kingdom and will open up direct channels of communication with British companies.

    The initiative will be launched by a conference and exhibition in the first half of 1993. Officials are currently working on the details of both. We propose to invite representatives of developing countries and to approach United Kingdom companies and others who have experience in providing environmental solutions for developing countries.

     

    Non-governmental Organisations

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister which non-governmental organisations he will be inviting to the global forum in June; if NGOs from developing nations will be involved in the preparation for the forum; where the forum will be held; what consultations he held with NGOs before announcing the forum; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    We are discussing the arrangements with non-governmental organisations. Overseas NGOs will be invited to attend and we expect them to be involved in the preparations.

     

    UNCED

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, what extra amounts he intends to give to the following areas, stating for each over what time period the donation will be made and in what form (a) forestry conservation, (b) biodiversity, (c) energy efficiency, (d) population planning and (e) sustainable agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Rio, we are planning to make available substantial extra resources for these areas. New commitments will be made as part of the planning and management of our overseas aid programme.

     

    Debt Burden

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to reduce the debt burden on developing countries and extend the Trinidad terms to other G7 nations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government are fully committed to the agreed international debt strategy, and have given a strong lead in tackling the debt burden of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. In addition to relieving developing countries of over $1 billion of aid loans, this Government have been responsible for both the Toronto and Trinidad initiatives. These were the first initiatives to result in the partial cancellation of the more substantial and burdensome debts owed by the poorest countries to export credit agencies.

    The Paris club began implementing Trinidad terms in December, and seven countries have already benefited. The agreed terms give a 50 per cent. reduction in debts falling due in the course of the debtor country’s IMF programme of economic reform, and commit creditors to consider reducing the whole stock of debt in three to four years’ time if the debtor keeps to its IMF and Paris club agreements. The Government hope that Trinidad terms can be further developed in the direction of our original proposals, which were for a benchmark figure of two thirds reduction applied immediately to the whole stock of debt. It would also be an important step forward if all creditors, without exception, were to implement debt reduction under Trinidad terms.

     

    Next Steps Agencies

    Mr. Higgins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that (a) letters from hon. Members to Ministers concerning next steps agencies which are concerned with political rather than administrative or commercial matters and (b) letters concerning the planning inspectorate will be replied to by Ministers and not chief executives.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government’s policy on dealing with letters from hon. Members on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government’s reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee’s 1990 report on the next steps initiative, Cm 1263, which said :

    “It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members. Ministers will normally ask the Chief Executive to reply to letters which concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency”.

     

    Royal British Legion (Training Centre)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June, Official Report, column 620, if he will make it his policy for any grant from PERIFRA II in respect of the Royal British Legion’s bid for the establishment of a training centre at Tidworth, for the purpose of giving specific training to service personnel and dependants for employment in civilian life, to be treated as additional to the Ministry of Defence existing budget, to the extent necessary; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The matter will be dealt with in accordance with the arrangements for grants from the European regional development fund set out in my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade’s statement of 30 June at columns 525-26.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on applying the principle of subsidiarity to the work of local government within the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    It is for Parliament to decide on the distribution of functions between central and local government.

     

    Intervention Wheat

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister how many tonnes of common wheat held in intervention by the European Commission to which he referred in his answer of 25 July 1991, Official Report, column 782, were released as emergency food and (a) in 1990 and (b) in 1991 and in each half of 1991 and (c) in the first half of 1992; and what is the predicted level for the whole of the current year.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Aid will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information requested is available from the European Commission.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Munich.

     

    Child Health

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 24 June, Official Report, column 219, if he will make a statement on the implementation of declaration 76 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in October 1991, relating to the framework for collaboration to put children first, particularly through co-operation programmes devised to enhance health and literacy levels among children; what priority is being given to enhancing child health in the developing countries in Commonwealth programmes; and what funding has been allocated to these programmes.

    Mr. Newton [holding answer 2 July 1992] : I have been asked to reply.

    Paragraph 76 of the Harare declaration endorses the declaration and plan of action of the survival, protection and development of children adopted by the World Summit for Children, which we support. The commitments undertaken at the summit to improve child health and security and to develop appropriate education are already among the basic concerns of the British aid programme.

    We are making a significant contribution through our aid programme of some £45 million a year to health and population programmes in Commonwealth countries. A breakdown of the likely beneficiaries between adults and children is not available, but a considerable proportion of this assistance will directly benefit child health.